1951-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester) moved:: That the name of Mr. Hees be substituted for that of Mr. Fleming on the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Balcom:: What is the current food cost per diem, per man, in (a) Royal Canadian Navy; (b) Canadian Army; (c) Royal Canadian Air Force; (d) active service hospital patients?


Mr. Blanchette:: (a), (b), (c), $0.97; (d), $1.22.


PUBLIC SERVICE-MOTOR CAR ALLOWANCE
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What allowance is paid to a government employee using his own car in government service?
2.	Is allowance uniform for all departments?
3.	Has allowance in such cases been increased, and when?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1. Standard mileage rates
Nine cents per mile, in cases where convenient railway or motor bus transportation is not available; three cents per mile, in cases where convenient railway or motor bus transportation is available.
Note:	The above are maximum rates.
Departments may pay less if they deem it advisable.
Removal mileage rates
Five cents per mile, irrespective of the number of people transported, when an officer is moved from one location to another.
Northern allowances-mileage rates
Five cents per mile, when travelling to and from place of employment on assignment, or, under certain conditions, when going on leave, but not exceeding the amount that would be payable for transportation expenses if the employee and his dependents, if any, travelled by the shortest practicable route that would accomplish the journey at the lowest cost.
Special rates
Soldier settlement and V.L.A.
Eight cents per mile for the first 7,000 miles in each fiscal year; seven cents per mile for the next 7,000 miles in each fiscal year, except in the province of Ontario, where the rate shall be six cents per mile; five cents per mile for all mileage in excess of 14,000 miles in each fiscal year, except in the province of Ontario, where the rate shall be four cents per mile.
Trade and commerce-standards division
$4 per day, or proportion thereof-for systematic inspection work within one centre of population when carrying regular inspection kit and the necessary number of iron test weights.
$6 per day, or proportion thereof, or at the rate of nine cents per mile for actual daily mileage, whichever is the greater-for country itinerary inspection work when carrying regular inspection kit and the necessary number of iron test weights.
$6 per day, or proportion thereof, or at the rate of ten cents per mile for actual daily mileage, whichever is the greater-for systematic inspection work when hauling a two-wheel portable petroleum test tank.
Fifty cents per hour, not exceeding $4 per day, provided that when one or more inspections or calls are made the minimum daily payment shall be seventy-five cents-for incidental use of cars, which is neither systematic nor country inspection work.
Extra payment may be allowed at the rate of seventy-five cents per hour, or nine cents per mile, for overtime driving when such driving results in the elimination of hotel expenses.

Questions
2.	Yes, except for special rates herein referred to, for soldier settlement and the standards division of trade and commerce.
3.	The standard rate was increased April 1, 1948, from 7 cents per mile for first 2,500 miles, 9 cents per mile for next 2,500 miles, 8 cents per mile for over 5,000 miles, to a straight nine cents per mile.


FARM LOANS
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	How many applications lor loans under the provisions ol the Canadian Farm Loan Act have been made from Newfoundland?
2.	To what agencies must applications be made for loans under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act from residents of Newfoundland?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	The Canadian farm loan board reports that a total of seventy-five inquiries for loans have been received from farmers in Newfoundland, resulting in twenty preliminary applications for loans, of which five are now formal applications.
2.	Head office of the Canadian farm loan board, Ottawa.


DIVORCE EVIDENCE
Mr. Knight:: 1.	How many copies of divorce evidence were printed at public expense during the period between January 1, 1949, and December 31, 1950?
2.	To whom are such copies distributed?
3.	Can a member of the public obtain a copy of this evidence in any particular case by applying for it?
4.	What was the total cost of printing this evidence and of the paper upon which it was printed, between January 1, 1949, and December 31, 1950?
He said: I have been promised this precise information from another source, and I would be agreeable to having this question dropped, without prejudice to my being able to submit it on another occasion if necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What has been the total amount of moneys advanced, lent, or paid, to all private or crown companies, either as capital assistance or otherwise, by provinces, for (a) fiscal year ending March 31, 1951; (b) during the present year to date?
2.	To what companies, and in what amounts, has capital assistance been granted for the above periods?



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the cost of (a) furniture; (b) carpets; (c) electrical fixtures; (d) all other equipment not included under the foregoing heads; (e) office furniture and fittings, which have been purchased by or for the Department of External Affairs, for use in (i) Canada; (ii) abroad1, in each of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, to date?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: For a statement showing (a) a list of construction projects in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for which tenders were invited by the Department of Defence Production from April 1 to May 26, 1951; (b) tender number; (c) location and type of work; (d) names and addresses of those submitting tenders, and the amount of each tender; (e) names and addresses of those securing contracts, and the amounts in each case.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-AGASSIZ-HOPE, B.C.
Mr. Goode:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of British Columbia and the federal government, during 1950 and to date in 1951, regarding the cost of opening a road between Agassiz and Hope, British Columbia.


Mr. Winters:: This motion may be accepted, subject to the provision that we shall obtain the consent of the government of British Columbia before the correspondence is tabled.


IMMIGRATION
John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and correspondence which passed between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or any official of said department, and John Fisher, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation commentator, during the months of March and April, 1951.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B.-CROSS POINT, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works, the Department of Justice, or any minister of the government, or employee thereof, and) the government of New Brunswick, or any department thereof since January 1, 1950, to the present time, in relation to the construction of a bridge between Campbellton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: We have no objection to the production of these papers after we have obtained the consent of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct one or two questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the matter he was discussing in his speech yesterday at the Canadian international trade fair in Toronto. Can the minister tell the house whether the United States embargo on trade with China is more restrictive than that which he announced yesterday as Canadian policy, and whether the Americans have imposed a total embargo on trade between the soviets and satellite countries and the United States, or whether the Americans are adopting the same policy as he indicated Canada is now adopting in connection with trade relations with these countries?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secrelary of State for External Affairs):: I was dealing with Canadian policy alone in that particular statement. In so far as strategic materials are concerned I believe that that policy is the same as the policy adopted by the United States in respect of shipments to soviet communist countries and to the people's republic of China. In so far as the policy of the United States on other than strategic materials is concerned, I am afraid that I am not in position to make a statement, especially without notice. I shall look into the matter and see what difference there is between our policy and that of the United States in that connection, if indeed there is any difference.



OTTAWA ORDNANCE DEPOT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence to answer the question I asked on Monday last with regard to fires at the ordnance depot in Ottawa. There are some other questions which I should like to ask along the same lines which I feel are urgent. Why was not the fire that broke out at 5.30 on Saturday morning last at the end of the building opposite from the main fire reported to the press? Was stocktaking being carried on in the ordnance depot in Ottawa last week? Will the minister state whether he will give the Royal Canadian Mounted Police a free hand to investigate these fires, and also whether a public inquiry will be held? I think that is needed; in fact I know it is needed.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since the fire occurred, its causes and the damages therefrom have been the subject of very active investigation by army officials, including the army fire marshal, and the R.C.M.P., which are working in close co-operation. I should say that at a conference this morning the city of Ottawa fire department was good enough to send its chief at my invitation, and he also is co-operating. I have asked the Canadian Underwriters' Association to make available some experts and they are co-operating in that way. In addition to the army court of inquiry, such other inquiries will be held as are deemed necessary to arrive if possible at the origin of this fire.
The hon. member asked why was not the second fire reported to the press. I have no knowledge of the fact that it was or was not reported, or why it was not reported, if it was not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: At the far end of the building.


Brooke Claxton: There was a second fire in area F that occurred at six o'clock in the morning. Before commenting further on this I think we should have the results of the inquiries which are under way and which will be pressed through to as full a conclusion as possible.
Before resuming my seat I should like to pay a tribute to the fire department of the city of Ottawa, and particularly to its chief. This fire began at about 9.40 at night and was reported by automatic signal to the fire department. The Ottawa fire department was on the scene just as soon as it could be, and the courage and skill and hard work of its members was the main reason why more damage was not caused. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the skill and trained experience, courage and hard work of the Ottawa fire department in doing such a superb job on that occasion.
I should like also to pay a tribute to the work of the armed forces, which at very considerable risk removed by hand highly inflammable and even explosive materials from buildings connected with area A where the fire occurred. Had these two agencies not co-operated as they did, had they not done the good work they did, the damage would have been much greater.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister
whether any corps of watchmen were on duty at that time, or was the department depending entirely upon automatic controls?


Brooke Claxton: All parts of the building are visited every fifteen minutes by members

Inquiries of the Ministry of the corps of commissionaires or service personnel. The corps of commissionaires provides a service on the hour and on the half hour, visiting twenty-nine stations where they punch their clocks to record the fact that they have been there. That is supplemented by service personnel who visit fifteen different stations, distributed throughout the building, on the quarter and three-quarter hours, so that every part of the building is visited every fifteen minutes.


Gordon Graydon: How many would there
be of that type of personnel watching for fires?


Brooke Claxton: There are quite enough to
do the job. I have not the number, but it would be of the magnitude of ten or fifteen on duty throughout the night.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many officers would
there be among the fifteen?


Brooke Claxton: One.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I am not trying to be
controversial, but I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence a question the other day to which I should like an answer. According to the press, an immense building for ordnance purposes, the largest in the British empire, is to be built in the city of Edmonton under one roof. Is the minister's department giving consideration to having it spread among four or five buildings instead of under one roof?


Brooke Claxton: I think the information
about the proposed ordnance depot at Edmonton has been exaggerated. A depot is proposed there, but it is not of that magnitude at all. It will be a depot for that command, and will be of the same type as other depots that have been or are being built across the country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like a direct
answer. Rather than having it all under one roof and subject to similar fires, will consideration be given to spreading it throughout the immense west in several buildings?


Brooke Claxton: That of course has been
given consideration from the point of view of economy and fire prevention, and consideration will continue to be given to that question.


Gordon Graydon: Too much concentration
would be dangerous, would it not?



MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT AT LONDON, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex Easl):: Yesterday I directed a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National

Defence. He took it as notice and was going to reply later. Can the minister answer the question now?


Brooke Claxton: I have seen the question, but
have not got the answer yet.



DECENNIAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister think the word "English" includes the word "Scottish"? The reason for my question is that when I came to fill out the census questionnaire I found under question 17 the heading "origin", and the various origins set out are "English, French, Irish, Jewish, etc." I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, particularly, and many others in this house if they do not think that some action should be taken to correct this. I hope the minister will be able to give me a more satisfactory answer than I think he will.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East wishes to ask a question on the same subject.


Mr. Maclnnis:: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will allow me, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood in objecting to being included in the et ceteras.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I regret that this strange situation was just called to my attention a few moments ago. I shall be glad to obtain an explanation from my officials. As they are very competent officials, I am sure there is a good explanation, but at the moment I am not aware of what it is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister tell his officials I put myself down as Scottish?


Mr. Mutch:: Some choice between "English" and "et cetera".



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yesterday, for want of a better subject, I spoke on the distribution of defence and defence supporting contracts. I have a distinct recollection that according to the break-down prepared by my department, the prairie provinces were getting a very reasonable share of these types of contracts. If I am fortunate enough to reach my estimates this session. I shall be very pleased to put the break-down on Hansard, and I am sure that my hon. friend will be highly gratified at the value of the contracts going to the prairie provinces.



EXCISE TAX ACT

Alphonse Fournier: the third reading of Bill No. 294, to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is finally adopted on third reading I want to make a few comments, particularly with reference to section 6, which increases the sales tax from eight to ten per cent, and which is therefore in effect an increase in the tax of twenty-five per cent.
During the discussion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was good enough to say that he agreed that it would be well for members of the house to have the opportunity of expressing their opinion on this bill, and particularly on section 6. Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Finance reiterated that opinion. At page 3730 of Hansard he said:
When hon. members have completed the discussion, which I hope is nearing an end now, I shall be quite happy to have such a vote taken.
I drew attention to the fact that we were in committee, that a very large number of members of the house were unavoidably absent attending important committees of the house, and that therefore a vote taken under those circumstances would not reflect the opinion of the house. A recorded vote was taken in the committee, and there were forty-two in favour of section 6 and twenty-eight opposed to it, a vote of only seventy members of the house. The minister noted that himself and regretted that more members would not be able to participate in the vote when the house was in committee of the whole. Therefore I propose to move an amendment to the motion for third reading of the bill. I move:
That Bill No. 294 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 6 of the said till.
Excise Tax Act
I believe that is in order at this stage. I had thought of moving that the section be deleted, but I thought if I did that there might be some discussion on a point of procedure, and in order to avoid any such discussion the amendment is worded as I have indicated.
I do not want to recapitulate all the arguments that have been advanced during the prolonged debate of this increase in the sales tax. I do want to say, however, that in my opinion it defeats to a degree the objective the minister said he had in mind at the time the budget was introduced-that is, of reducing the danger of inflation. I believe the increase in the sales tax, as in some of the excise taxes already adopted by this house, will mean increased prices for most articles and a renewed demand for wage and salary increases, as well as increases in the prices of certain farm commodities. After all, while some farm equipment is exempt from the sales tax, in many respects this tax does enter into both the cost of production and the cost of living in rural and urban areas alike. Consequently I believe that to a degree it will defeat what the minister said was one of the objectives he had in mind in some of the taxes proposed in his budget.
As I have said on many occasions, and in all parts of Canada where I have had the opportunity of speaking from time to time, in my opinion the sales tax is an oppressive and a discriminatory tax, because it taxes those who are often least able to carry any additional burden. It is true that a sales tax may be instituted for a particular reason, and under some circumstances potent arguments may be advanced to support it. Nevertheless the principle of such a tax is fundamentally unsound and wrong. Therefore we are opposed to that type of taxation, particularly at this time when it should be the care of this government to see that nothing is done to increase further the already high cost of living, which, as has been noted on other occasions by many speakers in this house, has now reached the unprecedented level of 182 as compared with the 1935-39 basic level of 100. Therefore I believe hon. members should have an opportunity to express themselves on this clause of the bill now before us for third reading.
I said I did not wish to go into all the arguments that have been advanced, and I do not propose to do so. By this amendment hon. members have an opportunity to ask the government and the house itself in committee of the whole to reconsider this bill with particular reference to section 6. In the amendment I am not suggesting that such consideration should bring about the desirable

Excise Tax Act
result I hope it might have. It might result in quite the opposite, if a majority of this house so decided. But, all hon. members should have an opportunity to register their opinions. I would hope that many hon. members supporting the government will take the view we are taking and so express themselves in connection with this sales tax.
I am not going to say more, because in view of the long debate we have had on this bill I think it is unnecessary to do so. I am moving this amendment in the hope that it will receive considerable support, and will bring about an expression of opinion of which the government must take heed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I
should like to add just a word. As has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), this matter has been fully canvassed and there is no need to review it at any great length. This amendment is substantially the same as the amendment I moved on second reading, and it is moved for the same reasons. I would just reiterate what I said on second reading: that the arguments presented during the budget debate, when we also asked that this increase in the sales tax be abandoned, I think have been strengthened by the lapse of time. I understand the reason for this amendment, in that the mover wishes to have a recorded vote on this question, which presumably will be substantially the same as the vote in committee the evening before last.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: 
An hon. Member:: How are you going to vote?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am going to vote for the bill, much as I dislike its contents, because, as I say, the government must have money. No one likes taxes; but if my socialist friends get any comfort from the way I vote, I am prepared to accept that responsibility.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Yesterday, while dealing with the increase in the sales tax, I suggested that if it was necessary for the government to raise more money, it would be much fairer if they did so by increasing either the income tax or the corporation tax, or both. In reply the minister had this to say, at page 3721 of Hansard:
My experience has been that under existing conditions an increase in the income tax means that those paying the increase-and I am referring particularly to the larger groups of organized labour-are not prepared to accept less take-home pay. In other words they feel that they should get a wage increase which would offset any additional tax.
According to the minister, if we raise the money by increasing the income tax-a fair tax, based on ability to pay-that would be a bad thing, because the people would know what taxes they are paying, and would object to them. On the other hand, the minister feels that if we raise the money by increasing the sales tax-which is a bad tax, because it is a hidden tax, and bears equally upon the poor and the wealthy-that would be more desirable from the government's point of view, because the public would be unaware of the amount of taxes they would be paying, and would blame the increase in the cost of living on the retailer instead of on the government.
The minister said that if the money is raised by increasing the income tax, the unions would demand higher wages to make up the difference in their take-home pay, and that would be inflationary. Mr. Speaker, when the sales tax goes into effect, the unions are going to demand greater increases than they would if the income tax were increased, because under the sales tax the workingman carries a heavier share of the load than he does under the income tax. Therefore, I think it is obvious that an increase in the sales tax is more inflationary than an increase in the income tax.

From this I believe it is only possible to draw one conclusion, and that is that by raising the money which the government believes it needs, through an increase in the sales tax instead of an increase in the income tax, or the corporation tax, or both, the government is serving political expediency rather than a desire to impose the lightest possible burden on those who are least able to bear an increased burden.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word on this subject, in order to make my position quite clear. I intend to vote against the amendment, but I also believe that, while I am not speaking on behalf of the farm districts in others parts of Canada, the apparent spokesman for the government had no knowledge of the problem of the farmer or thought of the welfare of the people of Canada. I want to refer again, Mr. Speaker, to margarine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is all very well for my friends from the maritimes to say "oh, oh". I want to make my position very clear.


An hon. Member:: You want grease.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If some hon. members in the back benches in that corner of the house in which I sat when I first came here have not the courage to get up and make a speech, they should not interrupt their betters. Mr. Speaker, to soften my remarks, may I state that I have had the privilege of being here longer than some members, but not as long as others. I have had the privilege of being here for about eleven years. I like every member in the house, and I hope they all like me. I respect their opinions, and I hope they respect mine. Irrespective of whether or not I agree with them, I realize that they are sincere in their beliefs. Even if a junior colleague from my own province should make irresponsible statements without the slightest foundation, reason, common sense or judgment, I respect his opinion. Incidentally, my province may be one of the junior provinces within confederation, but we do not consider ourselves a junior province in so far as good taste and good judgment are concerned. Mr. Speaker, I want to state to you, and through you to my colleagues, all of whom I respect, that I shall never divulge anything that occurs either within the secrecy of their home or on any other privileged occasion. I do not do business that way, because I do not have to do business that way in order to get a larger majority than I ever secured before. I can do that without the assistance of a member who took thirty days to neglect a promise to speak on my behalf campaigning all the time on his own behalf,
Excise Tax Act
while I had six meetings, and both of my opponents lost their deposits.
It has been suggested indirectly that I was disappointed that he did speak on my behalf. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it shows the supreme confidence that I had in the judgment of the people in the riding I represent that I was even willing to permit a member with apparently no idea of the welfare of Canada to speak on my behalf. I am asked by a very junior member from New Brunswick what that has to do with this amendment. I have forgotten what Brutus said or the minister of external affairs, but, come one, come all, if you want to interrupt me, knowing your names will not appear in Hansard, I am willing to take you on one or two at a time.
I want to make it quite clear that, while voting against the amendment I believe my colleagues and those who oppose me are sincere in their beliefs and are entitled to them. But, Mr. Speaker, representing as I do, a dairy district, I am entitled to the same consideration. I am sincere in what I am trying to put forward. I believe that this budget has not done justice to the dairy farmer. I may not be correct in that, but I sincerely believe it. I believe that, in the long run, the proposed excise taxes will not be of benefit to the people of Canada as a whole. I believe that the people of Canada will realize that, in the long run, the proposed legislation is not to their benefit, and it is definitely not to the benefit of the people I have the honour to represent. I have the honour to represent those people, Mr. Speaker, without referring to any conversation that I had with the Shah of Persia at the expense of the government. When I hear any remarks which I consider insulting to the great mass of farmers of our province, particularly the dairy farmers, I hope a correction will be made, from the source from which it should come, to the effect that they were not the expression of the policy of the government. Any man who insults the farmers of Canada and the dairy farmers that I have the privilege of representing should, I think, publicly withdraw any privileged statement made by the Shah of Persia or some deputy representative of Denmark or some other country. Denmark is a great country, I know. But my riding is a great dairying country, and we are proud of that fact. We make no apology to anyone for the way in which we conduct dairying in my riding or in my province.
I hope that I have had the last word in that connection, Mr. Speaker. I hope to say no more with regard to privileged remarks.

Excise Tax Act
I do not think the present form of taxation is necessarily the essential one to cover the matter. But, all things being considered, I believe that the government which I have the honour to support have evolved what is, in their judgment, the best form of taxation to cover all the people of Canada, in the best interests of all. But I take exception to it when any member goes, shall I say, beyond all limits. There has been an interjection here, Mr. Speaker, referring to the member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott). But I want to tell the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) that while the hon. member for Springfield was not a Rhodes scholar, he knows what is decency and what is not, and will not betray a confidence given at a private house or a private luncheon.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that on several previous occasions my colleagues and I have given reasons why we consider this increase in the sales tax unsound, unfair and undesirable at this time, it will not be necessary for me to recapitulate the arguments which we have thus far advanced.
Speaking in the House of Commons on April 10, the evening on which he delivered his budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) spoke as follows-I quote a short paragraph with reference to the sales tax, as reported at page 1813 of Hansard:
I have therefore come to the conclusion that the sound thing to do from the economic point of view, and the fair thing at this time, is to increase the sales tax. I believe also that this is the choice that will be preferred by the great majority of our people.
We take the position, Mr. Speaker, that the twenty-five per cent increase in the sales tax is not sound. We consider it unfair, and we have advanced arguments giving our reasons why we so consider it. We are also thoroughly convinced that the majority of the people of Canada do not favour this tax at this time. We therefore stand together in support of the amendment submitted today by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). (Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not surprised that the hon. members of the opposition seized this opportunity to criticize our tax structure and more especially the new taxes proposed in the present budget. It is natural for them to criticize but they do it all the more willingly when they realize that by so doing they will reap political advantages. However, what never fails to surprise me is to hear these
(Mr. Cruickshank.]
hon. members of the opposition, day after day, call upon us to furnish larger sums of money for various purposes, bonuses according to some,- compensation according to others, or plain gifts, according to others.
I know it is their duty to seem like good fellows in the eyes of their constituents. It is all the easier for them, I admit, to ask that millions and billions be given away since they know full well that they are in no way responsible for such donations. Having voiced requests of that kind, they find it easy to criticize the government for suggesting taxes to meet the proposed outlays.
The budget calls for expenditures of more than three billion dollars. There are times when I would be inclined to envy their position. But I still prefer to be on this side of the house, where I can express my opinion sincerely, without attempting to derive any political advantage.
I am astounded to hear those hon. members criticize present taxes, since the official opposition is always demanding the expenditure of additional billions for defence, charging that we have not yet spent enough in this regard and that we should have spent four or five times as much.
The socialists would have us give more than Canada has or can possibly have within the next ten years. They want huge sums of money to be paid into pension funds of all kinds, bonuses, etc.
Our good friends, the Social Crediters, would like the government to build a printing bureau for the sole purpose of printing banknotes, to be distributed to all citizens. After a quick calculation of the several amounts asked for by the opposition, I have discovered that we would need more than $6 billion to cover these expenditures, whereas the estimates provide for the levying of only $3 billion. In other words, if we were to accede to their requests, we would have to double the taxes the government now requires.
Just a few words about the additional two per cent sales tax. First of all, may I be permitted to remind the hon, members of the opposition that we dislike imposing taxes even more than they do, because we can derive no political advantage thereby. Tax increases go against us. Had it been possible not to increase the tax we would have been doubly happy. Tax increases help the opposition but not those who sit on this side of the house because such increases are not welcomed by the electors.

I know something about the matter as I am among the first to be penalized. As a merchant, I have to keep a heavy stock of goods. Part of these goods were already subject to an eight per cent tax. From now on another part of them will be subject to a ten per cent tax. Therefore my stock will be made up of certain goods subject to an eight per cent tax and other goods on which the tax will be ten per cent. This tax increase means that I have to protect a surplus of money against loss and fire. Five or six years ago, I paid taxes on certain goods I was unable to sell. In fact, the public does not pay more than before, because large quantities of goods are being sold at reduced prices. Then, let us not forget that when certain wares become out of fashion, they have less value. How much of those are sold below cost price? In such a case, the public does not pay the eight or ten per cent. The true businessman knows of no other country he would rather live in. Ask any businessman; he will tell you he prefers Canada to any other country.
I regret the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is not here. I would have told him he is the best promoter of margarine in Canada. He is a great help to the newspapers and to the producers of margarine. I wonder why he insists on talking about it so often in this house. The Liberal government had prohibited the production and sale of margarine as long as it could and I was always pleased to support our leaders in this regard.
But now, the provinces control the production and sale of margarine, a second rate substitute, the nutritional value of which is not one-quarter that of butter. Those who wish to see the matter definitely settled should turn to their respective provincial governments. I blame the government of my province for not having forbidden the sale of that product.
Unlike some people, I do not claim that this foodstuff is not fit to be eaten. I objected to the sale of margarine because I represent what is almost exclusively a farming constituency.
Farmers do not make a fortune but thanks to the sound administration of this government they live decently. Those who are always clamouring for the removal of taxes should try instead to bring prices down by asking workers, farmers and businessmen to 80709-2401
Excise Tax Act
work a few hours longer than at present. On the other hand, we in the House of Commons who spend half our time arguing, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer every day, should avoid useless repetitions and get down to work.
This is only the second time I have spoken in the house this year, and I do so without preparation. If members enacted bills more speedily instead of making so many speeches to please their constituents, it would be less costly to the country and things would go much better.
(Text):


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have already set forth my objections to the sales tax, and I shall not repeat them at length. However I should like to comment upon a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) as it is reported at page 3731 of Hansard for June 5, where he said:
I have answered my hon. friend1 as to why we think a tax on spending, such as the sales tax, is less inflationary than an increase in the personal income tax or a lowering of the exemptions; because I believe the imposition of such an additional tax would at once result in fairly widespread demands for wage and salary increases to offset it.
In the first place, I do not know of any group in the house that asked for an increase in the income tax at the lower levels. A number of alternatives were offered to the minister, such as an increase in corporation taxes, a graduated excess profits tax, and even an increase in income tax in the higher brackets. No group in the house has advocated an increase in income tax across the board as an alternative to the sales tax now under consideration.
Secondly, I challenge the minister or his parliamentary assistant, or any member supporting the government, to show where labour has gone to employers asking for any increase in wages because they felt they were bearing more than their share of income tax, or asked for an increase in wages on the ground that they were paying too much income tax. Ever since the government released its control on the cost of living, industrial workers have sought increases in wages to offset the increased cost of living. The government has been notified time and again by organized labour that, if it was willing to stop inflation and the rising cost of living, labour was willing to sit down and to iron out with the government the whole question of wage increases.

Excise Tax Act
Every demand for wage increases since the war has been made on the basis of the increased cost of living, and I submit to the minister that the imposition of an additional sales tax will be one more incentive to organized labour across the country to ask for increased wages, thus increasing inflation. It is that, and not the fact that industrial wage earners have been called upon to pay taxes, that has been the cause of the demand for increased wages throughout the year.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few brief comments. I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), because I consider the increased tax unjust, inequitable and unnecessary at the present time. If the government intends to pursue the policy that apparently it is now aiming at, a policy of combating inflation by the measures it is taking, by imposing credit restrictions in various forms and by increasing the cost of living, then the only assumption one who is not greatly versed in financial matters can come to is that* the government intends to combat inflation by creating depression. And if it is not very careful there will be a depression on the government's doorstep within a very short space of time.
I certainly intend to vote for the amendment.


Mr. Casselman:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Huffman:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion for third reading carried?


Gordon Graydon: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 344, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.


Mr. Fulton:: Will the minister make a statement either at this stage or in committee?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it would be preferable to make it in committee. It is a very simple bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Child.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister please make a statement now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is almost an act of supererogation on my part to attempt to add anything to the explanatory note in the bill. Under the British North America Act responsibility for the administration of justice is vested in the provincial authorities. Amongst those with whom they deal in that regard are juvenile delinquents, and to the end that they may deal separately with them, in a manner which is familiar to most of us, provision is made in the Juvenile Delinquents Act that children as defined in the act will be dealt with under its terms. The act defines a child as meaning any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of sixteen years with the provision that, in any province or provinces as to which the governor in council by proclamation has directed or may hereafter direct, "child" means any boy or girl apparently or actually under the age of eighteen years. In certain
Juvenile Delinquents Act provinces of Canada they have chosen to leave the age at sixteen years. In other provinces they have asked the governor in council to issue a proclamation raising the age from sixteen to eighteen years. In one of those, namely, Alberta, after having had some experience with the treatment of children as juvenile delinquents up to the age of eighteen, the authorities there are of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the better administration of justice to lower the age in that province from eighteen back to sixteen, and the purpose of the present amendment is to make that possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are there any provinces in which the age is not either sixteen or eighteen? Is there any province which has an intermediate age? It seems to me that is the only case which could give rise to any difficulty under this bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. According to my information, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta up until the present time, and Quebec have had the age limit raised to eighteen. Alberta now wants to have it brought back to sixteen. No change has been made in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island where the limit is still sixteen.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder if this act applies to Newfoundland. I did not have time to look over the list of statutes that have been made applicable to Newfoundland but in those that I did see there was no mention of this particular act being made applicable.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Speaking offhand in reply to my hon. friend's question, I apprehend that, under the terms by which Newfoundland entered the Canadian confederation, after the expiration of a certain time limit following that entry, certain laws of Canada become applicable to Newfoundland. I suppose that might include the Juvenile Delinquents Act, with the age at sixteen. If the province of Newfoundland wanted that age increased to eighteen it would be necessary to make representations to that effect.


William Joseph Browne: The minister must remember that two or three months after April a proclamation was issued which specified1 the Canadian statutes which became applicable to Newfoundland at that time, and the same proclamation contained a list of Newfoundland statutes which were abrogated, but I had not understood that this statute had been made applicable. In Newfoundland we had a child welfare act which was administered by the department of public health and

Juvenile Delinquents Act welfare, and which I thought was still being administered by that department. Under that act the age limit was seventeen, and I am wondering if the minister has made any inquiries to see whether that is still applicable.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A distinction has to be drawn in most provinces, certainly in my own province of Manitoba, between the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is a federal statute, and a child welfare act, which is a provincial statute. A child welfare act provides certain types of social welfare for the benefit of children. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is applicable to those delinquent children who would be dealt with in the ordinary criminal courts but for the special provisions in the Juvenile Delinquents Act under which they are dealt with by a juvenile court. I shall be glad to look into the matter for my hon. friend and advise him either privately or on the orders of the day. In Newfoundland they may not have wanted the Juvenile Delinquents Act proclaimed until they had set up a juvenile court in that province to administer it. That might be the reason.


William Joseph Browne: The minister is not very familiar with the situation in Newfoundland. While we do not call it a juvenile delinquents act we have the same provisions in the act dealing with public welfare. I have tried to study this bill here this afternoon, and it seems to me the provisions are almost identical. The minister does not seem to be too familiar with the situation, so it would not be fair to ask him questions; but between now and third reading he might make some inquiries to see whether this act has been made applicable to Newfoundland or whether we are still operating under the old act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Knowles:: By leave.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would undertake to give my hon. friend the information on the orders of the day if we could get on with this bill now.


William Joseph Browne: Very well.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bid.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 355, respecting weights and measures.


Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister not going to give an explanation?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Giving an explanation on second reading of this bill presents some difficulty, because no clear question of principle is involved. Rather the necessity for the bill arises out of the fact that there has been no general revision of the present Weights and Measures Act since 1873. There was a revision in 1914 having to do with one or two clauses dealing with the metric system, and a further revision in 1935 dealing with the short weight provisions of the act. These have been the only revisions since the act was passed originally. The result is that we have an act in force containing provisions not in accordance with present trade practices. In addition, the primary standards of length and mass were defined in this act, and we now have a more technically correct method of determining the primary standards of length and weight in the Length and Mass Units Act dealt with by this house a few days ago. Perhaps, however, I should say something about the general matters relating to weights and measures and the activities of the standards division of the Department of Trade and Commerce which administers this act.
The basic responsibility of the inspection service is to inspect and compare with the working standards all trade devices, whether they be scales, weights or other measuring devices, to ensure that they operate within specified tolerances. As part of the duty of ensuring the accuracy of measuring equipment there is a prior requirement on manufacturers to have trade equipment approved as to type before it can be sold for use in retail premises. When any particular piece of equipment has been approved and is manufactured, where practical it is inspected before release from the factory.
In addition to the statutory responsibility of annual inspections the weights and measures service carries out inspections at the

request of owners of equipment and does checking for unjust scales and for short weight practices. Hon. members will appreciate the difficulties involved in carrying out these inspectional duties, particularly in the matter of travel. Where there are large concentrations of population the work can be carried out on an economical basis, but beyond these the costs are high in relation to revenue. During the fiscal year 1949-50 an inspection staff of 109 travelled some 737,000 miles, calling at 141,000 places of business, where they inspected some 449,000 pieces of equipment. Spot inspections of 5,500 scales were made, and 55,000 pre-packaged articles were checked. For the fiscal year 1950-51, up to February 28, some 448,000 devices have been inspected, 11,300 scales have been spot checked, and 100,000 pre-packaged articles have been examined. For annual and request inspections fees are charged, and the revenue from these nearly covers the cost of operation of the service. For the fiscal year 194950 the revenue stood at $472,452.18 as against an expenditure of $512,539.74. Preliminary estimates for the fiscal year 1950-51 place expenditures at $547,486.41 as against revenues of $495,528.44. Consideration is at present being given to a revision of the fees. I might add that the scale of fees has not been changed since 1920 though the cost of operation, particularly in relation to transportation and salaries, has gone up a great deal since that time.
The service operates under the standards division of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that division also has the responsibility of supervising the inspection of electricity and gas meters. It is rather interesting and rather a pleasure to be able to tell hon. members that the over-all revenue and expenditure from all three services is such that there is no net charge against the federal treasury.
With this background, perhaps I should turn to some of the more detailed reasons for the revision of the legislation. As I said a few minutes ago, the first weights and measures legislation was passed at the session of 1872-73, and with the exception of the 1914 and 1935 amendments to which I have referred, there have been no basic amendments to the original legislation. In view of the length of time that has elapsed, and the fact that there are many advances in manufacturing and merchandising techniques, it has been decided that this is a desirable time to review the legislative authority.
While the proposed changes do not materially alter the principles of the present
Weights and Measures Act legislation, the administrative changes which are desirable make it essential that the whole act be substantially revised. It is thought that this would be preferable to amending the individual sections. The act, therefore, has been completely rewritten, and although in many of the sections it is just a carrying forward of the provisions of the old act, some of the sections have been deleted because they were outdated. Many of the sections of the present act were aimed at covering the use of particular types of equipment, which in the normal course of administration or use, are covered by the general rules applying to all types. It is, therefore, felt that the special reference need no longer be continued.
To illustrate, for example, milk cans are singled out for special reference in the present act. The reference was to their capacity, the marking of their capacity and other requirements. The form of the sale of milk has been tremendously improved, and there appears to be no necessity for the special reference because this form would now come under the general requirements for static measures. For instance, a great deal of the milk is now sold by weight, and the can in which it is contained is nothing more than a container. The provisions having to do with weight now largely govern, and that provision as to the can or container is no longer applicable. I use that as an example only.
The act, in its present form, places the responsibility for inspection beyond what was originally intended, in that the responsibility is placed on inspectors to examine and compare all weights, scales and other devices which are presented to them, whether or not those devices are used in trade. Furthermore, it is beyond the capacity of any inspection staff to stamp measures of length and volume. These, as members will appreciate, are mass produced and government inspection is not possible. An alternative method which will provide some safeguards is being proposed. This method will involve a system of approved prototypes which will give the necessary control of the measures sold. It is desirable also that clear authority should be given to ensure the proper marking of trade devices. All trade devices should be marked to indicate that they are legal for trade or not legal for trade.
In the case of measures which are in many cases mass produced, .a manufacturer will be able to submit a prototype and if it

Weights and Measures Act meets the construction and accuracy requirements it will bear a mark which will indicate it is legal for trade. Those for which no prototype is submitted will, of course, bear no mark and consequently may not be used for trade purposes. It is considered also that the respective duties and responsibilities of manufacturers and importers of weighing and measuring devices, and dealers in those devices as well as traders using those devices, should be clearly defined. In the existing legislation there is a failure to draw the distinction in the duties between these different groups.
Then, there is a wide development in the pre-packaging of goods in the last number of years. It is a common practice now to sell goods, particularly groceries, in pre-packaged form. There is an appropriate provision to provide that where these pre-packaged goods are sold by weight or measure, that weight or measure must be indicated and must be accurate. There is one other difficulty that I might mention. As -all hon. members are aware, federal legislation has been proclaimed from time to time as being effective in the province of Newfoundland. The proclamation of the Weights and Measures Act has been published, and the act is now effective in that province. Some of the standards of equipment in common use there do not meet the requirements in effect in other parts of the dominion. It would appear desirable, therefore, that there should be a provision enabling the governor in council to authorize a continuation of the use of certain of those measures and devices that are now commonly used in Newfoundland until such time as the necessary adjustment can be effected.
The matter of the penalties provided by the act caused some concern. They are quite inadequate in some respects. There is a great inequality as between penalties in the different sections, depending upon the time at which the penal provisions were passed. It is desirable that consideration should be given to revising those to the point where successful prosecutions will have the desired results, and not merely result in a very low scale of penalties out of line with the more recent idea of the value of the dollar. In addition to that, whilst relatively easy to uncover the offences, the requirement of proof was quite stringent in some cases and unnecessarily severe in others. The situation was that in the old act the penal provisions were not gathered together, and were not by any means uniform the one with the other.
Then, there is another change of some interest. The present act provides that penalties may be sued for, and one-half of the


penalty paid to the person bringing the charge. I believe it will be generally agreed that that practice is no longer looked upon with favour by parliament, and that provision is being dropped. Similarly, there is a provision in the present act for the voluntary surrender of equipment, and the voluntary payment of a fine, with the consent of the minister. That section has not been used for a great many years, and it is intended to drop it as being undesirable. I believe all hon. members will agree that the question of the guilt or innocence of someone is a question to be determined by a court. That provision is quite out of line with modern thinking on the subject.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the new act is, in effect, a modernizing and tightening up of the legislation. It is designed to be of such nature that it will provide a proper administration in the light of current manufacturing and trade practices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Joseph Browne: I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant if there was any reason for not following the practice followed in other bills of printing an explanation on the opposite page when sections are changed. Can the parliamentary assistant give some reason why that practice was not followed? Is there much difference between the former act and this bill?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in principle there are no differences, but there are great differences in the language of some parts: For instance, the dropping of the definition of the primary standards of the yard and the pound, which were defined in terms of physical bars brought to this country in 1873. That definition has been dropped from this act altogether and put into the Length and Mass Units Act. Consequent upon that deletion, there are some 19 sections, some of which are dropped and others drastically changed in language, but only consequent upon that point. The changes are of that nature. They do not affect any point of principle.


William Joseph Browne: I notice that two acts are referred to by the parliamentary assistant. He mentioned the revised statutes of 1914. I suppose that was carried on in 1927.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: He mentioned the 1935 amendment. Then there are two others mentioned in the headnote,

namely, those of 1937 and 1950. The parliamentary assistant did not mention those.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member would mind indicating again the reference about which he was asking?


William Joseph Browne: The head note of the bill gives the original act and the amendments. The parliamentary assistant said there was only one amendment in 1935. I notice that two others are mentioned in the head note. Were they important or were they trivial amendments?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I have not the reference to the 1937 amendment.


William Joseph Browne: 1937 and 1950.


George James McIlraith: I have not the 1937 amendment. I will send out for it. As to 1950, I might say that there was no amendment to this act in 1950. I do not understand the reference.


William Joseph Browne: It is mentioned in the head note; 1950, chapter 50.


George James McIlraith: I am sending out for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just as a long shot, I would guess that may be one of those statute law bills that made this act effective in Newfoundland or something like that. There have been bills which did not specifically amend the statutes but which just made all the statutes applicable to Newfoundland or had some general application.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I am sending out for them.


William Joseph Browne: These
weights and measures that we have in Newfoundland to which the parliamentary assistant refers are to be continued, are they? I refer to the quintal, the cask and the tun which are not in general use in Canada. I presume they are going to be continued until they are altered by some proclamation.


George James McIlraith: Yes. That matter is dealt with in section 15 of the bill which provides as follows:
Such weights and measures as the governor in council may designate may be used in the province of Newfoundland for such period as the governor in council may prescribe.
That section' is intended to cover the point raised by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that I have now looked up chapter 50 of the statutes of 1950 and I find it was the Regulations Act.


George James McIlraith: Oh, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While I am on my feet, may I ask a question with respect to this bill? I note that, in the explanatory notes, we are
Weights and Measures Act told that one of the purposes of this bill is to provide more practicable means of ensuring against short weight or short measure of pre-packaged goods. In the course of his remarks the parliamentary assistant said that modern developments for the pre-packaging of goods had made it necessary to have provisions that would take note of those practices.
There is a particular type of question about tinned goods that I should like to ask. I fully realize that a statute like this one, so far as its enforcement provisions are concerned, simply provides in the main that a tin must contain the weight or the measure that is stipulated on the outside of it. It has, however, been drawn to my attention a number of times-in fact, on certain occasions in my own home-that a housewife will purchase a tin of some sort of food-be it fruits, sea food or what have you-and that when she gets home and opens the tin, to her amazement she finds that it is only about half full, or even less than half. I have had such examples drawn to my attention.
On one occasion I was able to weigh the tin and point out to the person who drew the matter to my attention that the full weight was there. Is there anything that can be done about a practice of that kind? It is not general. I admit that most tins that one opens are full. But cases occur where the housewife feels she has been deceived. Merely to tell her that the full weight, as indicated on the outside of the tin, is there, does not get away from the fact that to her the tin was only half full. Is there anything in the bill now before us that relates to that sort of situation?


William Joseph Browne: As to that point, may I say that I believe there is a practice in the land-there certainly is in Newfoundland-that a pound tin contains twelve ounces and a half-pound tin contains six ounces. Is the parliamentary assistant aware of that practice? That is with regard to lobster.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the pound is shrinking like the dollar.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should first of all deal with the question raised by the hon. member on section 1, with regard to the 1937 statute. The reference there is to a provision for the recovery of penalties. It is a short provision to the effect that if the penalty does not exceed $50, it can be recovered on summary conviction. I think that has no bearing on any substantive matter.


William Joseph Browne: No.
3784	HOUSE OF
Weights and Measures Act


George James McIlraith: To deal with the point
raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I presume he has seen section 26.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


George James McIlraith: That section deals with
pre-packaged goods. But I think the example he had in mind perhaps refers to a difficulty under the Meat and Canned Foods Act which is not dealt with under the Weights and Measures Act.
In other words, under the Weights and Measures Act the duty of inspection there is to see that the weight indicated on a prepackaged article sold is accurate. That is, to see to it that, if the package says it contains twelve ounces, there are twelve ounces there.


William Joseph Browne: And if it
says it contains a pound, that there are sixteen ounces.


George James McIlraith: Yes; that is quite correct.
There is this other legislation dealing with meats and canned foods, and relating to cans specifically, that has to do with the true and correct description of the contents of the can and so on. The difficulty the hon. member has in mind does not, I think, have to do with the true weight or measure. If it does not have to do with that, there is nothing in this bill governing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I stated my position when I was on my feet before. I indicated that in cases of this kind the actual weight is there but that the housewife feels that she has been deceived. I know that I have been asked the straight question:	Is there no
protection for the housewife against that kind of deception, even though the practice may be legally correct?
A housewife buys a tin off the shelf. The information on the tin states that it contains a certain weight or a certain number of ounces. It does. However, she thinks from the size of the tin that she is getting that quantity of food. When she gets home and opens the tin, thinking that she will have enough for her family, she finds it has only half that amount. If there is nothing in this act dealing with the matter, is there something in the Meat and Canned Foods Act on that point?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the bill dealing with that point. This bill has to do only with the accuracy of weights and measures, and inspections made for that purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who administers that act?


George James McIlraith: The Meat and Canned Foods Act is administered by the Department of 

Agriculture and has to do with the quality of content, the size of cans, the mixing of products and things of that kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it say anything on the point I have raised, namely that a manufacturer should not put out a tin that is only half full?


George James McIlraith: I do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not the parliamentary assistant think that the housewives of this country have a right to protection against that sort of thing. I would repeat that this practice is by no means general. Indeed, the general practice is the other way, and I am not casting any reflection against those who put out products in the proper fashion. However it seems to me that even the odd case of that kind should not be permitted.


Mr. Siuari (Charloiie):: 
George James McIlraith: I do not know that I should enter into a discussion of the packaging of cigarettes. My understanding however is that the number of cigarettes in a package is always indicated on the excise tax stamp.
To return to the specific point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the regulations under the Meat and Canned Foods Act provide in some detail for the content of certain sizes of cans. That covers however a specified list of products. So that to answer the hon. member's question with absolute accuracy one would have to know the particular product involved.
For instance the weight of apricots in a certain size of tin must be a certain amount. The difficulty he has mentioned could not arise in connection with that product. It may be, however, that there are other products not included in the schedule of the act.
Weights and Measures Act


Mr. Wright:: Is there any regulation stating the amount of fruit as compared with the amount of juice or water which must be placed in a can?


George James McIlraith: Yes. That is found in regulation 25. A definition is set out as to the amount of solid fruit, liquid and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Canadian measures of length; standard yard.
George James McIlraith: In the French version I find that some change is required in subsection 3. The first two words in the French version as printed are "la perche". I am informed that a correct translation would be "le rod". A similar change would have to be made in the marginal note.


Mr. Lapointe:: I move:
That section 9(3) be amended by striking out the words "la perche" and substituting therefor in the French version the words "le rod."


George James McIlraith: It would then read:
Le rod lineaire est de cinq yards et do mi


Stanley Howard Knowles: S'il vous plait.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, the substitution of the word "rod" for the word "perche," as proposed by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith), is most appropriate and will be well received by members of the corporation of land surveyors of the province of Quebec and all those interested in this matter.
The English word "rod" translated by "perche" has been in the French version of the Weights and Measures Act since 1873. Most English-French dictionaries translate the word "rod" by "perche".
It is therefore easy to understand why the word "perche" was used instead of "rod", although the word "rod" may be found in nearly all French dictionaries.
In order to avoid any confusion, since the word "perche" is used in connection with the French system of measurement still used in Quebec for measuring land in seigneuries, I should think it really logical to replace the word "perche" by the word "rod". Naturally, certain changes will have to be made in the tables which appear on pages 18 and 19.
In the table appearing in schedule III, page 18, the word "rod" must be written in in place of the word "perche" in the lower portion, as well as in the second table appearing on page 19.
3786	HOUSE OF
Weights and Measures Act The Deputy Chairman: Is the amendment moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) carried?
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Newfoundland.
William Joseph Browne: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant approves of the phrasing, "such weights and measures as the governor in council may designate may be used in the province of Newfoundland"? They are in use now and in order to make them legal should we not say, "such weights and measures as are now in use in Newfoundland"? Would it not be preferable to have , it that way?


George James McIlraith: I think not, because the legal situation at present is that there is a breach of the law in the use of the tub and certain other measures. Technically it is illegal to use them now and this section would grant authority to make their use legal.


William Joseph Browne: Will the parliamentary assistant give an assurance that the proclamation making their use legal will come at the same time as the proclamation bringing the act into effect?


George James McIlraith: The situation is that they are now illegal. When this bill is passed they can be made legal.


William Joseph Browne: Only by proclamation of the governor in council.


George James McIlraith: Only by designation of the governor in council.


William Joseph Browne: Will the parliamentary assistant give an undertaking that the designation will be made simultaneously?


George James McIlraith: I do not think I should give it in that form because it might be mechanically impossible to carry it out, but I shall give an undertaking that they will not be withdrawn from use without adequate notice.


William Joseph Browne: There will be no prosecutions?


George James McIlraith: Oh, no, there have been no prosecutions.


William Joseph Browne: And there will be none?


George James McIlraith: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
(Mr. Dumas.]
[Stage Direction]
On section 26-Pre-packaged goods.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask about enforcement. I realize that this comes under later sections in the bill, but those later sections refer back to earlier sections. As an example, section 40 provides:
Every person who violates subsection one, subsection two or subsection three of section twenty-two is guilty of an offence.
I do not find anywhere that the violation of section 26 is an offence. It is true that subsection 3 of section 53 states:
Every person who violates any provision of this act or any regulation for which no penalty is elsewhere provided in this act, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars.
The parliamentary assistant may reply that that is the subsection which makes a violation of section 26 an offence.


George James McIlraith: Section 43 is the relevant section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 43 is in general terms. I point out again that under "offences and penalties" section 22 has been singled out as a section the violation of which is an offence. Why was section 22 singled out for special mention as a section the violation of which would be an offence, whereas section 26 was not?


George James McIlraith: Section 22 deals with the performance of contracts by weight, the rendering of services and that sort of thing, whereas the other section deals with the short weighting of goods, with specific things. I think that answers the hon. member's inquiry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not labour the point, but, as I say, subsection 3 of section 53 provides that the violation of any provision or regulation of the act shall be an offence, to which I have no objection, but I am wondering why you single out section 22 for special mention and not other sections such as section 26? It may be that the answer is that section 40 is not necessary in view of sections 43 and 53, but I leave it to the parliamentary assistant.


George James McIlraith: I think the effective answer is that it is not strictly necessary. The hon. member will note that section 22 contains much wider language than the ordinary provisions in the old act. It is a point over which the legal minds in the department have worked but I am afraid I did not work with them. The hon. member will notice that section 22 deals with something a little out of line with the ordinary provisions of the act, that is, the performing of services and things of that sort.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we take it that a violation of section 26 is no less an offence than the violation of any other provision of the act?


George James McIlraith: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 27 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On section 35-Powers of governor in council.
John Alpheus Charlton: I should like the parliamentary assistant to explain subsections 1 (d), (m), (o), and (p).


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member mind repeating the sections?


John Alpheus Charlton: Subsections 1 (d), (m), (o) and (p) of section 35.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could deal with them one at a time. Subsection (d) is just a matter of the tolerances to be allowed in weights. It is a necessary thing in trade because you cannot be completely scientifically accurate, and it is a matter of the tolerances to be allowed.


John Alpheus Charlton: What tolerances would be allowed?


George James McIlraith: If you spell it out, it
becomes impossible to spell out the same tolerances for a type of scale used for weighing multiples of 100 pounds as you would for something used to sell in ounces. It is purely a matter of covering the mechanical problems to reconcile the accuracy in the ordinary industrial sense with scientific accuracy, and that depends on the size and type of the weighing device in use.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a 20-ton scale what tolerance would be allowed?


George James McIlraith: The tolerance allowed there is one pound in a thousand.


John Alpheus Charlton: Forty pounds.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Subsection (m) has to do with the weight of wrappers or containers of commodities sold by weight. What is allowed for the wrapper or container?


George James McIlraith: That covers the control of things like the sale of groceries where they are sold in a container. The trader is allowed to put a bag on the scale and fill it. For instance, if you are buying ten pounds of sugar bulk it provides that allowance for the paper bag is a certain specified amount. That is specified there, and it is a very fine thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: He can make no allowance for the paper bag?
Weights and Measures Act


George James McIlraith: If it is less than-


John Alpheus Charlton: If it is more than-


George James McIlraith: Let us state it the other way. He can make an allowance for the paper bag up to a certain amount specified in the regulations. There are regulations covering that.	*


John Alpheus Charlton: Subsection (o) has to do with
the amount of error that may be tolerated in pre-packaged goods. There are a great number of pre-packaged goods sold in grocery stores today, cheese and many other commodities.


George James McIlraith: The reason for that is the change in weight due to temperature and humidity. Temperature and humidity can cause a slight change in weight. Let us take prunes. On a damp day prunes absorb a great deal of moisture, and on a dry day the moisture content goes down. The purpose of this section is to provide for the tolerances on different products.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the very point. Is a grocer allowed to weigh his prunes on a very damp day?


George James McIlraith: No, because they would then not be within the tolerance. The whole thing is to set these tolerances so fine that they will not permit a trade practice of that kind. That is the very purpose of it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Subsection (p) deals with the exemption of pre-packaged goods. What prepackaged goods would be exempted?


George James McIlraith: That is to provide for the situation where tolerances are set, for instance, on a product that comes under the Foods and Drug Act. If tolerances have been set under that act then we have authority to exempt such goods from the regulations under this act.


John Alpheus Charlton: Take canned goods, for
instance.


George James McIlraith: If the specifications are set under the Meat and Canned Foods Act then this section gives authority to exempt that particular pre-packaged article from the provisions of this bill.


Mr. Knight:: Referring to subsection 2, I
should like to ask about the inspection staff. How many weights and measures inspectors are scattered across the country? Are they on the basis of population? How does one estimate the number of inspectors assigned to a town or city of a certain population? Is it on the basis of population or is it on the basis of the number of business places? How does it work?
3788	HOUSE OF
Weights and Measures Act


George James McIlraith: There are about 109
inspectors on this work in Canada. The areas are defined taking into account population factors, the number of places of business and the geographical difficulties of travel. Where there are great distances to cover you obviously have to have more inspectors per unit of population than' you would have in a thickly populated area.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the work of these inspectors confined to the inspection of the accuracy or lack of accuracy of weights and measures or have they any responsibility with respect to the giving of short weight on the part of stores and other merchandising people? Is it merely a case of establishing the accuracy of the tools, if I may call them that, which the storekeeper uses?


George James McIlraith: No, they do both. They
not only establish the accuracy of scales used in trade-there are provisions for annual inspection and so on-but the same inspectors also investigate for short weight practices.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is the point I wanted to bring out. It seems to me the inspector must have a pretty difficult job to keep track of all these businesses. There are so many places of business that it seems to be an almost impossible situation. What procedure should be followed by an individual when ho finds he is being given short weight? I presume the procedure is that he keeps the particular item he has purchased, and upon which he has been short weighted, and then submits it for inspection. What does anyone do when he finds he has received fourteen ounces of prunes when he was supposed to get sixteen?


George James McIlraith: If he has a record and it
is short weight, there is evidence right there that would warrant prosecution. If there is any suspicion a store is doing that, these inspectors can go out and do spot checking on their own and catch the practice in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They go out and buy the
prunes?


George James McIlraith: Yes, they buy the prunes,
if I may use that expression. Really the successful deterrent in this is that it is not known when the inspectors are likely to come in; and the unfavourable publicity resulting from successful prosecution for short weighting is also a great deterrent and is very effective.


William Joseph Browne: Have there been many prosecutions?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I might mention a case within my own experience, where a grocery store put on what they called a sale. The price IMr. Knight.]

looked good, but when they got home one or two of the customers were curious enough to weigh the article and found they had been short weighted, so the advantage they thought they had gained had evaporated in that way.


George James McIlraith: That is the very thing it is intended the inspectors will be able to catch. That is one of the main purposes of the inspectors. As to the number of prosecutions, in 1950-51 there were ten; in 1949-50 there were four; and in 1948-49 there were sixteen.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Covering what territory?


George James McIlraith: That is for the whole of Canada except Newfoundland.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those prosecutions arose out of how many complaints?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can answer that in a little different way. In 1948-49 there were 766 warnings issued. In 1949-50 there were 724 warnings, and in 1950-51 there were 1,605. Those arose out of inspections and pre-packaged goods inspections totalling some 64,000 in 1948-49, 56,000 in 1949-50, and 108,000 in 1950-51. In addition there were 5,409 spot scale inspections in 1948-49, there were 5,498 spot scale inspections in
1949-	50 and 11,397 spot scale inspections in
1950-	51.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the purposes of this act what would be the definition of the word "warning"? What do you mean by a warning?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can best answer that by giving the practice. If the irregularity discovered appears to be very slight, one warning is issued. If there is a second irregularity there is a prosecution.


Mr. Bryce:: Is there always a warning?


George James McIlraith: Not if the person concerned has a record, or if it is a flagrant case. If it is a very slight irregularity a warning is always given.


William Joseph Browne: Then is the warning followed up?


George James McIlraith: Yes, by a spot check, usually within six weeks. That may not be possible in some of the outlying regions where there may be travel problems, but the standard practice is to have the second check within six weeks in areas where access is reasonably easy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When there are several hundred warnings given in a year and then only a handful of prosecutions, do we understand that all those warned were checked up again?


George James McIlraith: That is so; and that relates back to my remark about the tear of adverse publicity being the effective deterrent under this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that even this discussion today may be all to the good.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that section 35 (1) (k) permits the governor in council to make regulations respecting the fees to be paid for these inspections. Are these inspectors not appointed under the civil service commission?


George James McIlraith: They are, but the fees go into the consolidated revenue fund. Payment of the fees must be made to the inspector on the job at the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that go toward his salary, or does he turn in that fee?


George James McIlraith: He turns in that fee. He is paid a salary in the ordinary way, like any other civil servant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 36 to 49 inclusive agreed to.
On section 50-Using or selling falsified weight, etc., or breaking seal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the parliamentary assistant tell me the meaning of the word "utters" in this section?


George James McIlraith: I must admit that though for some two years I did a good deal of prosecuting in my capacity as a practising lawyer, I was never sure of the origin of that word, which is to be found in a great many of the penal provisions of the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did you think it meant?


George James McIlraith: It means something in the nature of putting forward, anyway. If you utter a forged cheque you put it forward.


William Joseph Browne: If you put
it forward it will not be a forged cheque.


George James McIlraith: It has to do with the putting forward of the article. That is not the legal or precise definition, nor do I think it is a very good one, I am quite frank to say. This is a common expression used throughout the Criminal Code. I had not anticipated any question on it or I would have taken the opportunity to inform myself a little better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am as satisfied with the parliamentary assistant's explanation as he is himself.


Mr. Ferguson:: When a member of the
House of Commons puts forward his views, is he not uttering?
Returned Soldiers Insurance Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Some are muttering.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Others are stuttering.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 51 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
On schedule II-Canadian standards.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a technical question to ask, or perhaps it is a typographical question. If the parliamentary assistant and his officials will look at page 16 of the bill we
are told:
The standard unit of length for Canada is the yard, which is nine thousand, one hundred and forty-four ten-thousandths (9,144) of the international metre.	(10,000)
It would seem that it was intended to put that numerical fraction within parentheses or within a set of brackets, but actually in the text before us only the numerator of the fraction is within the parenthesis marks. Should not the set of brackets be around the whole of the fraction?


George James McIlraith: Yes, they should. It is a question of printing, and I do not know that it can be corrected by amendment. Quite frankly I do not know how to get at the correction of it, but the bracket should be around the whole thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose if the parliamentary assistant is really stuck, I could telephone my friends over in the printing bureau and ask them to straighten the matter out. I would suggest that, in some way, it should be corrected in paragraph 1 and also in paragraph 2. In both cases, the parliamentary assistant agrees with me that what is intended is to place the entire fraction within the bracket.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall raise the question with the printers and see that it is straightened out.
Schedule II agreed to.
On schedule III.
(Translation):


The Deputy Chairman:: Is schedule III of
the French version of the act also to be amended?	[DOT]


Armand Dumas: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand that
the word "perche" appearing in the "measures of length" table in schedule III is to be amended and replaced by the word "red" In addition, the word "perche carree" in the
3790	HOUSE OF
Weights and Measures Act "measures of surface" table in schedule III are to be amended and replaced by the words "rod carre". Are these amendments carried?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would the chairman be kind
enough to read these amendments in English?
(Text):


Louis-René Beaudoin: It has been moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the word "perche" in the French version of the text which appears in the table of values of principal denominations of measures of length in schedule III be amended by substituting the word "rod," and that, in the table of values of principal denominations of measure, the words "perche carree" be replaced by the words "rod carre".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule III as amended agreed to.
Schedule IV agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


George James McIlraith: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RETURNED SOLDIERS INSURANCE ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act for the following purposes:
To strike out from the act certain parts that no longer apply due to the fact that the time of taking out new contracts of insurance has expired;
To increase the amount of insurance moneys payable under the policy at the time of death of the insured;
To reduce to some extent administration difficulties now found in the act and to "bring the act more Sn line with the Veterans Insurance Act in the matter of beneficiary restrictions and particularly in the manner of changing of beneficiaries and altering mode of apportionment of insurance;
To remove certain restrictions respecting the payment of insurance benefits to the estate of the insured; and
To waive premiums on life contracts when the insured reaches his eighty-fifth birthday.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I understand the veterans committee is sitting now. The minister would not like to proceed with that matter now.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not believe there will be any objection. It is proposed that this bill be referred to the veterans affairs committee. If I can get it through the resolution stage and1 the next two stages, then the committee would be seized with the matter immediately.


William Joseph Browne: It seems to me to be the sort of thing which the members of the veterans affairs committee should be here to discuss. Every member of the veterans affairs committee is out of the house.


Hugues Lapointe: As I pointed out, the bill which will follow this resolution will foe referred to the veterans affairs committee, where it will be dealt with. The bill is rather a technical one, and I think it could be discussed more effectively in the select committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: However
convenient and natural it might be to refer it to that committee, surely that does not mean that we practically cease to exist. Might it not be suitable for the minister to make at least a short statement before that action is taken?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry if I gave my hon. friend the impression that I was trying to do away with the house. Hon. members will recall that this Returned Soldiers Insurance Act was passed in 1920, and authorized the minister to enter into insurance contracts with veterans of world war I, certain widows of such soldiers, under terms and conditions provided in the act. The act was amended in 1930, at which time the date of August 31, 1933, was fixed as the final cut-off date for receiving applications for insurance under that act.
Now, the main purpose of the bill will be to remove certain difficulties in the administration of the act, and furthermore to bring the act more in line with the Veterans Insurance Act which followed world war II, and *concerning which a bill was introduced in this house about a week ago. That bill has now been referred to the veterans affairs committee.
For instance, it is proposed to remove certain restrictions now placed on the insured respecting the change of beneficiary and the change of mode of payment of the policy proceeds. Under the present act such a change can only be made by a declaration of the insured endorsed upon or attached to the policy. Hereafter, those changes may be made by the insured in his will or by any other document satisfactory to the minister.

Under the act as it stands at the present time only the reserve in the policy is authorized to be paid where the insurance proceeds pass to the estate of the insured. Hon. members will recall that when I introduced the amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act a few days ago, they contained one section which removes that situation from that other act. We intend to do the same thing here. It is proposed that the face value of the policy will be paid where, under the provisions of the act, the insurance money is payable to the estate of the insured. There is also a disability benefit under the present act consisting in a waiver of premium and the payment to the insured of the insurance in instalments, in certain cases where the insured becomes totally and permanently disabled from a disability that does not entitle him to a pension under the Pension Act or to hospital allowances while receiving treatment from the department on account of a war disability.
In this case, as in the case of -the Veterans Insurance Act, it has been found difficult to determine what was a total permanent disability; and it is intended at this time to remedy this situation by mentioning in the act that when a total disability has existed continuously for a period of one year, it shall meet the purpose of this section.
We also intend to place this act more in conformity with the Veterans Insurance Act by authorizing the payment of a sum up to $2,000 at the time of the death of the insured. Under the present act the limit is $1,000; and, as I explained the other day, the balance is paid in the form of annuities over a period of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years.
The same reasons which apply with regard to the other act apply in respect of this change in the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act.
In the amendments there will also be something to clarify the point with regard to qualification of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate to receive benefits under these contracts. The remaining amendments are of a minor and administrative nature and, as I mentioned before, are mostly meant to put it in line with the Veterans Insurance Act. Provision is also made to strike out those parts of the act that no longer apply owing to the fact that no new contracts are being entered into and also for certain amendments in order to make the act conform with the changes proposed in the bill.


William Joseph Browne: I am
sure that everyone here is pleased to know that these amendments are to be introduced and that they will mean an improvement to
6,	1951
Returned Soldiers Insurance Act the Veterans Insurance Act. I had no idea, until I heard the minister speak the other day, that this law was in existence at all. I am sure that it will be gratifying, to all those in Newfoundland who are enlisting in the forces going to Korea and in the regular army, to know that it exists, and also that improvements are being made in it.
In reply to a question I asked the other day, the minister said that insurance was on an actuarial basis. I gather that there are some provisions here which are not usually accorded under ordinary insurance contracts. Some of them are of special interest to soldiers, and would not be given by the ordinary insurance company. I am sure we are all pleased to know that the amount which will be payable immediately has been increased from $1,000 to $2,000. Did I understand the minister to make a statement to the effect that the maximum amount allowable under this legislation will be $10,000?


Hugues Lapointe: The maximum amount for
which the contract could have been entered into was $5,000. My hon. friend realizes, of course, that there are no new contracts entered into under this act. This legislation was enacted immediately after the first war; and as I mentioned previously, September, 1933, was the date line for new contracts. Now veterans of world war II have the benefit of -the new act,*namely the Veterans Insurance Act.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister if he will give us some figures showing just what has been the extent of the operations under the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act which, I understand, affected the situation after the first war, and also what has been the extent of the operations of a similar kind since the second war.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have not this information here today. I do not want my hon. friend to misinterpret my remarks, but again I expected that type of information would be asked for and be more easily given and explained in the special committee on veterans affairs, before which it has been the habit to call in officers of the department and those who are directly concerned with the administration of the act. I regret that I have not here today this information asked for by my hon. friend.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to try to make any difficulty, Mr. Chairman; but quite frankly, it seems to me a pity that all those who are familiar with this matter
3792	HOUSE OF
Returned Soldiers Insurance Act happen to be in various committees at the moment. If the chairman would allow me to call it six o'clock, I should be glad. My feeling is that before the resolution leaves this committee of the whole there should at least be the opportunity for the people who are familiar with it to be here and to agree, as I feel sure they will, in exactly the course proposed by the minister. It is now almost six o'clock. I think I can carry on until six o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: May I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Royal generally handles these matters. I understand hon. members want these bills to go to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee have about six bills now.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not insisting. But I would point out that the last time we had a resolution like this before us the hon. member for Royal said, "All right, it is to go to the committee", and it was not postponed. I think it is before the committee. But if the hon. member insists on his rights, he can do so. The minister says he has not these details, and that they can be given by officials before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the word "insists" is a strong word to be used.


Alphonse Fournier: Then. I will withdraw it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is just about one minute to six. In any event, all I am suggesting is that we should keep this resolution in committee here so that those who are familiar with the matter-including the hon. member for Royal and the others-

will be able to have their day in court or their minute in court.


Alphonse Fournier: They will have it, because these bills all come back here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I should prefer that those who are familiar with this matter should be here when it is dealt with.


Alphonse Fournier: It will be six o'clock before my hon. friend gets through. He will speak longer than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It will be six o'clock very soon. Of course, if the minister insists on cross-examining me like this until six o'clock, I suppose I can stand it. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the Senate amendments to the Indian Act. I understand that there are some minor amendments to which the government does not object. Then we will go into committee of supply and consider the estimates of the Department of Resources and Development, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Labour.


Mr. Green:: In that order?


Alphonse Fournier: The first one will be resources and development.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 7, 1951